Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2694/2026 of Vellaiyammal Vs Thangam on 1 October 2026
CRP(MD) No. 2694 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2694 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011264162026}
and
C.M.P(MD)No.13655 of 2026
1. Vellaiyammal
W/o. Late SVVSKD Duraisamy @ Subramaniya Kunjaya Duraipandian,
Melmandhai Village,
Vilathikulam Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
2. Veerasakkammal @ Selvam
D/o. Late. SVVSKD Duraisamy @ Subramaniya Kunjaya Duraipandian, W/o. Mariappan, Kattabomman Santhathiyar Apartment, Panjalankuruchi, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
3. Vellaipandiasami
S/o. Late. SVVSKD Duraisamy @ Subramaniya Kunjaya Duraipandian, Melamadhai Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
4. Sakkaraisamy
S/o. Late SVVSKD Duraisamy @ Subramaniya Kunjaya Duraipandian,
Vilathikulam Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
CRP(MD) No. 2694 of 2026
Thangam
W/o. Selvaraj,
D/o. Late SVVSKD Duraisamy @ Subramaniya Kunjaya Duraipandian,
Melmandhai Village,
Vilathikulam Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: J-35. Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 24.07.2026, passed in
I.A.No.5 of 2026 in O.S.No.44 of 2018 on the file of Learned Sub Court, Kovilpatti and allow this Civil Revision Petition and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s K.K. Samy
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The civil revision petition is filed against the order passed in IA.No.5 of 2026 in OS.No.44 of 2018 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.
2. The Revision Petitioners are the defendants, and the Respondent is the plaintiff in the suit for partition and separate possession. Since the defendants failed to file their written statement, they were set ex-parte on 15.11.2018, and an ex parte decree was passed on 14.08.2024. Therefore, the defendants filed I.A. No. 5 of 2026 to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the delay of 438 days in filing the petition.
CRP(MD) No. 2694 of 2026
3. It is the contention of the Petitioners/Defendants that the first defendant is the mother of the defendants 2 to 4 and that, as their mother was unwell, they were continuously staying with her and accompanying her for medical treatment. Consequently, they were unable to meet their counsel and file the written statement in the suit.
4. The Respondent/Plaintiff contended that the application had been filed with the intention of protracting the proceedings. However, considering that both the plaintiff and the defendants are senior citizens, the Respondent expressed no objection to allow the application in the interest of the speedy disposal of the suit. The Respondent also requested that the Petitioners be restrained from encumbering the suit property and that the trial be conducted on a day-to-day basis. However, the Trial Court, is of the view that the Petitioners had neither adduced sufficient evidence nor produced any documents to substantiate their claim, dismissed the application, holding that no sufficient or convincing reasons had been shown to condone the delay.
5. The Respondent/Plaintiff submitted that all the parties are senior citizens and that the Respondent’s primary intention is to ensure the speedy disposal of the suit by conducting the trial on a day-to-day basis. The Respondent did not seriously object to allowing the petition. If the petition was dismissed on technical grounds, it could lead to multiplicity
CRP(MD) No. 2694 of 2026 of proceedings. Therefore, to avoid further litigation and taking into consideration the no-objection expressed by the Respondent, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, subject to the condition that each of the Revision Petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the Respondent towards costs for the delay. Considering that both parties are senior citizens, the Trial Court is directed to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis and conclude the proceedings at the earliest, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NS To The Sub Court, Kovilpatti
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
CRP(MD) No. 2694 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. ns CRP(MD) No. 2694 of 2026 01-10-2026